Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!akgua!usl!jew
From: jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: What should be added to C, call it PL/2
Message-ID: <788@usl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jun-86 14:48:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.788
Posted: Tue Jun 24 14:48:19 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Jun-86 07:21:14 EDT
References: <36@mit-prep.ARPA> <264@brl-sem.ARPA> <730@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> <4327@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson)
Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana CACS
Lines: 20

In article <4327@sun.uucp> guy@sun.UUCP writes:
>> >You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I.
>> 
>> On Multics (the distant ancestor of UNIX), it's PL/1; the compiler is
>> called "pl1", programs are foo.pl1, etc.  Considering the (historical)
>
>So what?  GE/Honeywell didn't invent the language, IBM did, so if IBM says
>it's PL/I it's PL/I.  Furthermore, the fact that the command name of the
>compiler, and the language suffix, is ".pl1" doesn't mean that the
>language's name is PL/1; what does the Multics *documentation* call it?

Honeywell Multics documentation does indeed call it PL/I .  But it is
pronounced "pl1" at both Multics and IBM sites.  The "I" is merely a
Roman numeral, and thus the hypothetical successor would be PL/II.

                               Jim Wilson

US Mail:  USL P.O. Box 45147, Lafayette, LA 70504; tel. (318)231-6423
UUCP:   {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!jew        ARPA:  usl!jew@ut-sally